Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2839/B of 1976, decided on 7th September 1976.

‑‑ S. 497 ‑Delay‑Petitioners, accused of conspiring to commit murder, behind bars for last 4 years without enquiry proceedings or trial‑Held A fit case for giant of bail.

Syed Nazar Abbas Zaidi for Petitioner.

Muhammad Sharif Butt for the State.

A case is registered under section 460, P. P. C. against the petitioner along with others en the 7th of August 1972. The background is that Akbar lodged F. I. R. to the effect that on the preceding night four unknown persons entered his house while he and his wife namely Mst. Ashraf Bibi were asleep on the kotha on separate cats. They strangulated Mst. Ashraf Bibi and thus murdered her and thereafter pulled out the ear‑rings from the ears of Mst. Ashraf Bibi and took the same away. On the basis of this F. I. R. investigation commenced and the police found out that the murderer of Mst. Ashraf Bibi was Akbar, her husband and the first informant himself, along with three others including the petitioner: The investigation turned to this direction because Akbar is alleged to have made an extra‑judicial confession implicating him and the others in the commission of crime. The record of this case has been sent by the Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura and I have perused the same. The statements under section 161, Cr. P. C. of the witnesses of extra judicial confession have been perused by me. They apparently stated that the petitioner was involved along with the others in a conspiracy for the murder of Mst. Ashraf Bibi deceased. Thereafter, it is stated that at the instance of Akbar, the ornaments belonging to Mst. Ashraf Bibi deceased were recovered from the house of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel argues that no specific role had been ascribed to the petitioner out since Akbar was inimical towards the petitioner, he has got him falsely implicated in this case although the petitioner had no motive to murder the deceased. It is then contended that the rise was registered against the petitioner in 1912 and although 4 years have passed, so far neither any inquiry proceedings commenced nor there is likelihood of early trial of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner had been behind the bars for the last four‑ears without trial and also on the ground of inordinate delay it was a fit case for the release of the petitioner on bail.

3. I have heard learned counsel from both the sides. It is evident that whatever the case may be on merits, the case was registered against the petitioner in 1972 and four years have passed without enquiry proceedings or trial. This would amount to inordinate delay and in the circumstances 14 am left with no other alternative except to admit him to bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 25,030 (Rupees Twenty‑Five thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C., Sheikhupura.

This petition stands disposed of.

Appeal Allowed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.